If you like a non-nuclear Iran, you can keep a non-nuclear Iran

If the deal approved, this much is certain — Iran will obtain nuclear weapons, terrorism will increase, an arms race in the Middle East will ensue, and America and our allies will be far less secure.

by George Landrith • President of Frontiers of Freedom

Under the agreement now being celebrated by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Khamenei, and by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, Iran will become a nuclear power in 15 years — perhaps sooner. Even the Obama administration admits that Iran could have nukes within about one year, if it cheats on the agreement. But in any event, the deal paves the way for Iran to have nukes in 15 years — all with the world’s approval and blessings.

If 15 years sounds like a long time, think about your young child, grandchild, niece or nephew and ask if their world will be a safer place if the Islamic Republic of Iran has nuclear weapons when that child is in from high school.

Former Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate and former Senator Joseph Lieberman testified before Congress this week, “The agreement …ultimately allows Iran to become a nuclear weapon state, and indeed legitimizes Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons…. This is a bad deal for America, a bad deal for Iran’s neighbors in the Middle East, and a bad deal for the world.”

Trust vs. Verification:

Obama says the deal “is not built on trust, it is built on verification.” This claim is laughably false. Only select sites pre-approved by the Iranians can be inspected with ease and at any time. The vast majority of Iran, which is roughly twice the size of Texas, is effectively off limits for inspections. Inspectors must seek permission from the Iranians to inspect other locations. Under the agreement, Iran can delay requested inspections by at least 24 days without any penalties.

Giving Iran 24 days to delay before a suspected nuclear site can be inspected will give Iran enough time to do a lot of “cleaning up” and move a lot of evidence — thus making the agreement nearly impossible to enforce. The ability to immediately inspect only those places to which the Mullahs consent is not a serious verification system. And it falls far short of the “anytime, anywhere” inspections Obama once said were a requirement for any deal.

Imagine giving drug cartels the option of delaying by almost a month a legal search pursuant to a warrant. Does anyone really think when the search finally takes place that any evidence will remain?

Why any sane person would trust Iran’s Mullocracy is beyond rationality. In just the past few months, both British and German intelligence has found that Iran has been secretly pursuing nuclear materials and missile technology in clear violation of UN resolutions and the terms of the current agreement. Iran was violating international law and agreements while it was negotiating a new agreement that it also plans to violate.

Iran is a rogue state and the world’s premier state sponsor of terrorism. Why is Obama trusting Iran’s Mullahs?

Ineffectual Enforcement Mechanisms:

To make matters worse the enforcement mechanisms are unworkable and ineffectual. More than $150 billion in sanctions will be lifted without reliable proof of longterm Iranian compliance. With that influx of cash, Iran can fund more terror and insulate itself from an increasingly frustrated populace who yearn for freedom. And since the inspections will be ineffective because Iran can block and delay them, it is almost certain that there will be little evidence of Iranian violations until they are ready to detonate a test bomb. If you can’t prove violations because the inspections are not serious, there will be no immediate “snap back” or quick reimposition of the sanctions.

Moreover, it took a decade or more to put the sanctions in place and for them to begin working. So Obama — even if he wanted to — cannot immediately “snap back” the sanctions.

Additionally, the sanctions cannot “snap back” because the UN and the EU would have to take action to reimpose them. That certainly won’t happen quickly, and it won’t likely happen at all. Russia’s Putin will almost assuredly use the veto in the Security Council to block renewed sanctions. And as soon as the sanctions are lifted, Iran will negotiate lucrative contracts with a variety of key nations. These nations will then be reluctant to permit renewed sanctions that would end their favorable contracts.

This agreement is cleverly designed to be unenforceable, but have the outward appearance of enforceability. The truth is there will be no sanctions “snap back” and Obama knows it. Just as he knows the verification and inspection provisions are largely ineffectual and easily evaded by Iran.

Administration’s Talking Points Are Designed to Obfuscate the Truth:

Virtually everything Obama is saying about the deal is a carefully crafted and purposefully deceptive political talking point that is devoid of truth and specifically designed for the purpose of misleading the public and muting opposition to an obviously horrible deal.

Obama did the same thing with Obamacare. Remember, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? That turned out to be the “lie of the year” even according to the liberal media. Obama is now effectively promising that if we “like a non-nuclear Iran, we can keep a non-nuclear Iran.” It won’t be long before most everything the president is saying about this deal will be widely recognized as a big lie.

There is another important reason why Iran will cheat and why this deal will fail to protect America or our friends and allies. Iran knows that Obama desperately wants and needs this deal to succeed for his legacy. So no matter what the Iranians do and no matter how badly they cheat, we can trust Obama to look the other way and not notice Iran’s violations.

Obama tells us this is a good deal. But he said the same thing when he swapped five of the Taliban’s top operatives and leaders for a single deserter. Obama says this agreement “cuts off” Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. As is obvious by now, this is flatly false. The deal guarantees that Iran will have a nuclear bomb and when it does, it will be with the world’s approval. It may, or may not, delay the day of Iran becoming a nuclear power. But this agreement will not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or “cut off” its nuclear goals. To say otherwise is simply dishonest.

The Centrifuge Reductions & Enrichment Dilution Are Next to Meaningless:

Obama tells us that Iran will have to substantially reduce the number of its centrifuges down to “only” 6,000. But this is about twice as many centrifuges as Pakistan had when it developed nuclear weapons. Moreover, under the agreement Iran can continue its centrifuge research and upgrade its centrifuges. This is effectively no impediment at all.

Obama tells us that Iran will have to dilute its enriched uranium stockpile. But what he doesn’t tell us is that Iran will receive natural uranium in exchange for doing this. With that influx of natural uranium — a resource that Iran desperately needs — the Iranians will be able to enrich their uranium stockpiles back to the pre-agreement levels and move towards weapons grade uranium. With 6,000 upgraded centrifuges, this provision will be even less than a temporary speed bump. Some intelligence reports have argued that this provision will actually shorten Iran’s path to a nuclear bomb, not lengthen it.

Arms Embargoes Will End & Increase Terrorism:

The agreement would lift key arms embargoes which prevent Iran from buying conventional, nuclear, and missile technologies. This was reported to be a last minute request by the Iranians, and the Obama administration inexplicably agreed.

Democrat U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (N.J.) said, “It’s amazing to me that we included the arms embargo and the missile technology question as part of this deal.” He continued, “The reality is that there’s a reason why Iran wants that. It wants to be able to continue to deploy its terrorism throughout the region as it is presently doing, even [while it is] in desperate economic straits. I worry about intercontinental ballistic missiles and their ability to produce it.”

Senator Menendez is not alone. Numerous Democrats have expressed incredulity that the Obama would agree to lift the arms embargoes given Iran’s history of sponsoring terrorism.

The arms embargoes may be lifted sooner than advertised because the deal allows the embargoes to be lifted sooner if inspectors fail to find evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. But as already discussed, the inspectors do not have free access to fully and thoroughly inspect. Thus, Iran will be able to hide its activities and then claim compliance even though they are cheating.

Obama will, of course, tout so-called Iranian “compliance” as proof that his deal was a good one and that naysayers were wrong. But the truth is the agreement was designed to be unenforceable. While Iran is almost certain to cheat, this agreement was designed to not detect the cheating, and not to stop it.

Opposition is Bipartisan & International:

Within the U.S., the opposition to this deal is wide, and deep, and bipartisan. Numerous Democrats have expressed opposition to the terms of the agreement. The agreement is certainly going to be rejected by wide majorities in both the House and the Senate. The only question is whether the opposition will reach the 2/3’s super-majority required to over-ride a presidential veto.

This raises an interesting historical point. No president has ever agreed to such a life and death accord, knowing in advance that it would be rejected by wide margins with significant opposition from both political parties and from some of our most trusted allies.

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn) said that the deal with Iran is “extraordinarily naive and dangerous.” He said that President Obama has “failed in foreign policy everywhere he has ventured” and that this agreement is his “biggest failure.” When asked why as a Democrat, he was so critical of Obama’s deal, Hikind replied, “I am an American first and a Democrat second.”

Even President Obama unwittingly acknowledged that the opposition to his flawed deal is strong and bipartisan when he threatened a veto of any attempt to change or reject the accord.

Obama is banking on finding just 34 Senators to side with him so that he can avoid a veto override. If he can get just one in three Senators to vote not to override his veto, he can ram this agreement down America’s throat sideways — just as he did with his name sake healthcare bill. Similarly, he is using the same strategy of lies and disinformation to tamp down opposition.

Israel and most of the nations in the Middle East are troubled by Iran becoming a nuclear power. If Iran’s neighbors don’t trust them, why should we?

Of course, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, likes the deal. So does China. They see it as a chance to sell more arms and missile technology to Iran which will shared with terrorists. Putin’s plan to resuscitate the former Soviet empire moves forward unabated while Obama makes good on his promise of greater flexibility during his second term. Oddly, Obama is more flexible than a rubber band when dealing with the world’s despots, but a rigid and inflexible ideologue when dealing with his fellow Americans.

One thing, Barack Obama is not — is a student of history. Not too many years ago, North Korea entered into an agreement and promised to give up its nuclear program. President Clinton sold it as a great deal that would prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. But within a few years, North Korea was a nuclear power despite the agreement. History is repeating itself.

Weakness Is Provocative:

This deal is worse than no deal at all because it will destabilize the Middle East, spark an arms race, and further spread nukes around the globe. It is already reported that other nations in the Middle East are in the process of buying nuclear weapons from Pakistan to protect themselves against a nuclear Iran. These nations were not previously seeking such weapons — at least not until Obama made it clear that he would not stop Iran and that he would in fact guarantee a nuclear Iran. Now there is an arms race in the Middle East.

Additionally, some nations are now in the process of finding more reliable friends or better allies — like Russia and China — for military and economic alliances. Strengthening the influence of Russia, China and Iran is not a step in the right direction if you’re trying to promote world peace and stability.

All of this is motivated because the world sees Barack Obama as weak, ineffectual, and impotent on the international stage. Obama’s consistent weakness from the day he took office will have significant and lasting costs. There will be more conflict and suffering and less security around the globe. Even once a more rational and responsible leader occupies the White House, the damage Obama has done will take years, perhaps decades, to undo and repair.

Obama is a one man wrecking crew — leaving a wide path of chaos, destruction, suffering and instability in his wake. Just look at all the refugee camps littering the Middle East that sprung up after Obama set red lines and then denied ever having set those red lines. This sort of weakness is provocative and costly.

There is no region in the world that is more stable or with whom we have stronger relations than when Obama took office. In fact, around the globe things have gotten far worse. Russia is threatening its neighbors and our allies, and combative towards the U.S. China is building a world class Navy to challenge US power around the globe and has become increasingly belligerent.

Libya, once an ally in the war on terror, is now one of the focal points of terrorist activities in the Middle East. Yemen, also once an ally in the war on terror, is now in flames as extremists wage war in the streets. Iraq was considered won in 2009, but now it has devolved into mayhem as ISIS’s influence has grown. This list could go on and on, but you get the idea — things are worse — a lot worse. This is what failed leadership looks like and this is what happens when you consistently project weakness.

Straw Men & False Choices:

Obama offers a false choice — between his foreign policy and war — between this bad deal or endless armed conflict in the Middle East. War is always the boogyman he offers as an alternative to his inept policies. But there is another option — consistently showing resolve and strength. The world’s despots are emboldened when they see weakness. Conversely, they become more timid in the face of strength.

Reagan defeated Soviet communism without an armed conflict. He showed consistent strength and resolve. He accurately and honestly labeled the enemy for what it was. And he relentlessly pursued military and economic policies that advantaged America’s interests and undermined our adversaries. Once pressed, the Soviets negotiated on America’s terms, and shortly thereafter, the iron curtain collapsed and the Berlin Wall crumbled. That is what projecting strength can do.

Since the collapse of the Soviet empire, as long as America showed strength and resolve, Russia has mostly behaved itself. But once Obama began exhibiting weakness in 2009, he invited the very troubles we now see around the globe. I predicted precisely this during Obama’s first year in office. This is simply what happens when the world’s sole superpower exudes weakness.

Sadly, much of the world is devolving into pandemonium. Iran, Russia, China, ISIS and other terrorist groups are seizing the moment and pressing their advantage given Obama’s weakness and ineffectual leadership. Meanwhile Obama continues to pat himself on the back for his “prescient” and “successful” foreign policy. That is as destructive as it is delusional.

Iran’s Mullocracy Is Not Worthy of a Dime’s Worth of Trust:

There is nothing wrong with trusting those who have earned trust. But it is dangerous and naïve to trust those who have repeatedly and consistently proven themselves to be deceitful thugs. Iran’s leadership fits the latter description perfectly.

If Iran’s Mullahs were acting in goodwill and interested in becoming a reasonable and responsible nation, why didn’t they release the four American hostages that they are holding? And why didn’t Obama demand the hostages release as a condition? For the record, Obama’s explanation — that he didn’t want to introduce non-nuclear topics into the agreement for fear it would open up too many other topics — does not square with the facts. After all, Obama agreed at the last minute to include a provision in the deal that lifts the embargo on conventional(i.e. non-nuclear) weapons.

Why doesn’t Iran stop funding terrorism around the globe? Why doesn’t Iran stop providing bombs to terrorists to kill Americans? Why doesn’t Iran stop threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”? And why didn’t Obama demand these issues be resolved as condition to any deal? Obama agreed to giving Iran at least $150 billion in sanctions relief, but didn’t insist that it not be spent on terrorism, not used to kill Americans, and not used to fund more attacks on Israel.

Obama says his Iran deal is historic. He could be right about that. I do not recall any time in our nation’s history when a president signed an agreement on such an important and deadly topic as nuclear weapons with a nation whose leaders publicly led thousand in chants of “Death to America!” — while the accord was being negotiated, no less!

The reason Iran doesn’t do any of these things is simple — Iran isn’t interested in behaving responsibly or respectably. They are only interested in seeing the sanctions lifted and obtaining a nuclear bomb. And Obama isn’t interested in holding Iran accountable or making them behave reasonably or responsibly. He is focused only on his own rigid ideology and his faith that it will bring him an historic legacy. Were he a better student of history, he would see the fallacy of pinning his hopes for a bright legacy on such a destructive and dangerous deal.

The Iranian dictatorship is evil to its core — both its actions and words attest to this undeniable fact. Yet, Obama foolishly gives them the benefit of the doubt and trusts in their poorly feigned goodwill.

Conclusion — Will House & Senate Democrats be Americans or Partisans First?

President Obama has announced that he will veto any attempts to limit or alter the implementation of this horrific deal. The question is whether Democrats in the House and Senate will be Americans first, or partisans first. There was a time when virtually all politicians of either party were Americans first and partisans second. We will soon see if those times are but a quaint memory, or if being an American still has deep meaning to the left leaning political class.

Democrats in Washington, D.C. have spent much of the last six years blindly supporting Obama’s destructive and unpopular policies. They’ve paid heavily for it in the polls — losing majorities in both the House and the Senate. Let’s hope that there are at least a few principled and courageous Americans in their ranks. If there are, they can save the United States and the world from a catastrophic mistake. But if they cannot resist the partisan urge, the world will be an even more dangerous place and the American public will likely hold them accountable in future elections. But sadly the harm will have been realized, and the damage will have been done.

For these reasons, there will be no more important votes this year in Congress than defeating this Iranian agreement and overriding the president’s promised veto.

Our Mission

Frontiers of Freedom, founded in 1995 by U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop, is an educational foundation whose mission is to promote the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, ...